Re: RFC: kernel.bbclass and collie changes

[Thomas Kunze <thommycheck@gmx.de>]

Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 11:48 +0200, Thomas Kunze wrote:
>   
>> Phil Blundell wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 01:56 +0200, Thomas Kunze wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> +/dev/mmcblk0p1	b	6600	0	6	179	1	-	-	-
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Is that "6600" really correct?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Of course not. Just a typo.
>>     
>>> It does also seem bit odd having an mmc device in the "minimal" device
>>> table.  I can understand why you need it on collie but I am not sure it
>>> is all that desirable for device-table-minimal.txt to become the union
>>> of the devices that everybody needs on their favourite platform for
>>> booting purposes.  Since this is truly a machine specific thing I would
>>> be inclined to use a separate file, or a collie-specific catenation onto
>>> the installed copy.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I see your point. But OTOH we have 20 hda*, 9 serial consoles and 16 mtd
>> nodes in there. So its hardly minimal. In my opinion it doesn't hurt to add
>> a further node.
>>     
>
> As mentioned on irc, there is a more fundamental problem. The mmc block
> device number is assigned from the dynamic pool, not the static one. If
> you have any other device which uses a dynamic block number the file
> becomes incorrect. You therefore really have to create these nodes using
> udev/mdev or some custom script which finds the right value from sysfs.
>   
That's bad. Ok than its a bad idea to include this in the default device
table. Using sysdev would need
an extra C program as there is no regexpr support in klibc and hence no
sed/grep etc.
As I don't have any other devices enabled that use a dynamic block
number (Otherwise it wouldn't work ;),
I will create separate file for the mmc node for now.